Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,977

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#203278 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The authors of this study are looking at the evolutionary process of determining a mate for the purposes of reproduction.
This is not a study that looks at “marriage”, which is a legal union that ties people together.
Just because the first paragraph mentions “marriage”, it is not a discussion about marriage. In fact, the authors specifically use the words “mating relationships”; which, as we know, not all marriages are “mating relationships”.
Now you may say I’m splitting hairs, but in the opening paragraph, did you happen to notice how the authors define marriages as being “usually” regarded as formal reproductive alliances? Another way of saying this would be “While some marriages are ‘usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances’, NOT ALL marriages are defined in this manner.”
I think this is an important distinction; one that cannot be overlooked.
Next, this article is focused exclusively on heterosexual RELATIONSHPS (not marriage) that are SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of reproducing.
It doesn’t touch on those relationships in which couples make the conscious and mutually agreed upon decision that they will not reproduce.
As I’ve pointed out to you time and again, the numbers of married couples who are choosing NOT to have children has been increasing over the past few decades. This article doesn’t not address it and therefore does not ask or answer the question “why?”
Another problem with this article is that it does not examine homosexual relationships (long-term or short-term) at all.
Obviously same-sex relationships exist. They’ve always existed.
But since this is an article about the evolutionary processes involved with regards to opposite-gender couples in determining who to mate with; and NOT an article about marriage; the authors don’t spend time talking about gays.
Their... y is not discussed by the authors, their exclusion of the subject CANNOT be viewed as an endorsement that marriage MUST BE reserved for opposite-gender relationships only.
Lastly, I did a search on David M. Buss, just to see what he has to say about homosexuality. One of his “theories” is that some men “choose” homosexuality because they are unattractive to women.
We know that homosexuality is not a choice. That’s stupid. Even the most homely straight man could not—would not—“choose” to become gay.
And all that David Schmitt has to say about gay men is that they, like heterosexual men, enjoy having more sexual partners than gay and straight women.
Here’s the bottom line, you total rube; the article you cite is not about marriage. It’s about mating and how it MAY have evolved over the millennia. Since it does not examine heterosexual relationships in which couples consciously decide to forgo having children and since there is no discussion at all about homosexual relationships, you CANNOT conclude that this article in ANY WAY supports the belief that marriage should be confined to opposite-gender couples.
Perhaps you should read beyond the first paragraph of an article before you decide to throw it around as proof-positive for your notions.
Here is the bottom line.

In the first paragraph, they verified my concise statement; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

As to the rest of the content, I knew exactly where it went. As I noted with my first reference, I have chosen brief summaries that prove my statement.

You should take note of the practice of 'briefness'...

Again, you can find that statement in other articles regarding marriage and mating behavior.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203279 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they both weren't. I easily demonstrated that.
<quoted text>
No pretending was necessary. I was gay through the entire process of having children.
And I stopped pretending to be hetero around the age of 16 when I realized that ugly people like you have big mouths, but don't at all represent the normal people of society. You're a coward and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Smile.
No, you demonstrated nothing, except poor lies. You're the coward and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203280 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>\
Everyone of these bumper sticker, fundie, illiterately crafted talking points has been debunked numerous times.
You have no argument. You're a desperate fool and an ugly c*nt.
While we know that your little house of worship operates on the philosophy that repetition creates truth, here in the real world that isn't the case.
Smile.
More lies from a liar. You're the coward, and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203281 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not marriages, and why? Because they are not recognized on the state or federal level, thank you for making my point.
Not yet. But, they will be. 15 years ago, we said the same about SSSB. Which wasn't moral or proper until the government said it was.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203282 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not marriages, and why? Because they are not recognized on the state or federal level, thank you for making my point.
We'll just forget the Constitution, which places more validity upon Poly than it does SSSB...
sheesh

United States

#203285 Jul 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Here is a map that might help you. It was not an adjacent neighborhood: http://globalgrind.com/news/trayvon-martin-sh...
Georgie made a mistake, he decided he didn't belong because of his skin tone. they both are stupid. And it seems you are too. let it rest. take your Zimmerman poster down, he's no hero.
Thank You! Gestapo doesn't like facts that don't jive with his paranoid and pathetic view of the world. He and Zimmerman appear to be equally challenged with respect to intellect. Zimmerman claims that he got out of his truck to look at a street sign to give a location to dispatch. In his own friggin' neighborhood. If you have a look at google maps you can see that that "big Ol' neighborhood consisted of three streets. Retreat View Circle, that one runs around the perimeter of the neighborhood. There is Twin Trees which appears to run through the neighborhood crossing Retreat View Circle twice. And finally Long Oak Way which connects Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees. The more I look at stuff the more the Zimmerman trial looks like the O J Simpson courtroom circus.
sheesh

United States

#203286 Jul 17, 2013
Hypocrisy Watch wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called sarcasm, shitferbrains. We all know that you human coffee tables are going to be hypocrites and give de Blacke Mon a pass because he too is listed on The Government protected species list.
Everybody knows he was a homophobe. Chantel or Latisha (or whatever her name is) told the world.
Imbecile.
Yeah, I was once guilty of thinking little of homosexuals when I was his age, you know, a kid. Then I grew up because no one put a bullet through my heart.

Speaking of feces filled skulls, kindly point out where I was willing to give Trayvon a pass. I merely pointed out a few things to some hard of thinking mental midget. Namely our "hero" Zimmerman was more of a thug than Martin was. Zimmerman's past included violent acts.

Martin's past included possession of an empty pot bag, a pipe, some jewelry (not proven to be stolen) and a burglary tool (commonly known as a screwdriver). It does all seem rather incriminating doesn't it, the screwdriver and women's jewelry as well as his claim he was holding it for someone. No history of violence on his record has come to light. Oh, and some graffiti.

Zimmerman, OTOH, liked to slap his woman around and was occasioned to throwing a few at cops. As I mentioned before, I don't want either of 'em hanging around in my neighborhood. Oh wait, I don't have to worry about that, Zimmerman took him out while disobeying police order. Apparently he needed to get out and check a street name in his own neighborhood. One that only had three streets in it.
laughing man

UK

#203287 Jul 17, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I was once guilty of thinking little of homosexuals when I was his age, you know, a kid. Then I grew up because no one put a bullet through my heart.
Speaking of feces filled skulls, kindly point out where I was willing to give Trayvon a pass. I merely pointed out a few things to some hard of thinking mental midget. Namely our "hero" Zimmerman was more of a thug than Martin was. Zimmerman's past included violent acts.
Martin's past included possession of an empty pot bag, a pipe, some jewelry (not proven to be stolen) and a burglary tool (commonly known as a screwdriver). It does all seem rather incriminating doesn't it, the screwdriver and women's jewelry as well as his claim he was holding it for someone. No history of violence on his record has come to light. Oh, and some graffiti.
Zimmerman, OTOH, liked to slap his woman around and was occasioned to throwing a few at cops. As I mentioned before, I don't want either of 'em hanging around in my neighborhood. Oh wait, I don't have to worry about that, Zimmerman took him out while disobeying police order. Apparently he needed to get out and check a street name in his own neighborhood. One that only had three streets in it.
You must be new here, Bubba. Well, you show from Kentucky, just as bad.

I don't have dialogs with shit cultists or their Enablers. I'm only here to mock them and slap them around.

Thank me.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203288 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to have believe in whichever book you want to in this country
but there are people legally married that don’t believe in your little religion too.
and people of different religions that believe in many different gods and many different religious laws.
and people of no religion at all
Your little book has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage and how it is defined under US Law
How come you failed to include a snide little diatribe involving religion and volcanoes? No mention made of flying bowls of spaghetti? Ooga Booga?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203289 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you could quote a legitimate social scientist who defines marriage as you do...
You can't. They do not exist. Your definition is contrived; a lie.
Please stop blatantly lying if you wish to be taken seriously.
Even if we felt like doing your job for you, you wouldn't acknowledge his/her validity, anyway... You'd scoff, mock, belittle, insult and disparage. Tell us that we think that we're "gods" before you were through...
sheesh

United States

#203290 Jul 17, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be new here, Bubba. Well, you show from Kentucky, just as bad.
I don't have dialogs with shit cultists or their Enablers. I'm only here to mock them and slap them around.
Thank me.
I show from Kentucky because that is where the IP addy appears to have me. But I'm not there at all, giggling eejit. Nope, I'm not new here either, guess again. You've slapped no one around either dimwit. You only mock because you're pathetic.
Stats

Monrovia, CA

#203291 Jul 17, 2013
Stone cold fever of over there.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#203292 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The "basic essence of marriage" is a human legal matter, not a natural matter.
The point is marriage is a union of the sexes, that's the essence.
There are no legal "marriages” in the animal kingdom outside of human governmental law.
You are free to call your grotesque marriage whatever you want to, but you will not be defining mine or anyone else’s.
Yet u advocate for SSM which does exactly that, at least legally.
There is no requirement of intent or ability for procreation for a marriage license, we marry couples all the time and have for hundreds of years that cannot have children.
Of course not, marriage is a union of the sexes, and surprise, sex makes babies, human societies throughout history have figured this out, hence the recognized male female relationship.
Your belittling those people is not helping your case in any way at all, you are only driving more people to our side of equality and freedom.
Thank you Big D Orwell.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203293 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
She deliriously labors under the mistaken believe that her opinions mean something to me, you or to other gay people! I think in her head her repeatedly not using the word spouse or marriage in context with gays will just make the millions of gays everywhere go, "damn it, some of the fundies won't use the word marriage when they talk about our marriages. I guess we should just stop trying to get their approval and go back to not marrying."!!!!!!! Their imaginary self importance is hysterical!!
It's also so fun to watching her responses become more and more ugly. Speaks volumes!
We already pointed out that you gays don't give a damn about anything, except for yourselves. You don't care about religion, children, decency, marriage equality, etc. all you're interested in is: YOURSELVES! You see nothing wrong a publicly broadcast discussion about semen cocktails. You parade dildoes around, as if there is nothing wrong with that. you drag in Matt Shepard, and dispute Jesse Dirkising. You laugh that we are possessed with "imaginary self importance", while claiming that yours is the only opinion that counts. You mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, while calling us "bigots" and "haters", all the while calling us "asshats' and "traitors" and such. WTF is this claptrap that you are posting? All about what is wrong with our side and how there is nothing that yours can do wrong. You call others "ugly" while spouting off with some of the ugliest shyte a person can say. I make a proper post about the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and get panned and negative judgits for my trouble. So, I that your opinions are those of spoiled little children seeking their little bit of satisfaction, at the expense of morality. And, if you don't want to accept facts, then piss off. You've done more to solidify my position against SSSB than anything else could have. Just by being your demented, bent, immoral selves.
sheesh

United States

#203294 Jul 17, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be new here, Bubba. Well, you show from Kentucky, just as bad.
I don't have dialogs with shit cultists or their Enablers. I'm only here to mock them and slap them around.
Thank me.
BTW chuckles, are you pleased that the UK will be having gay marriages performed next year? All legal. Cheers!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203295 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooooh, all seeing fundie eye!!!
Believe me, the deprivation was very short lived. About a minute or two really. Once they realized the pay off was being endowed with two awesome fathers. Something that fundies like yourself deny your children. Why do you hate your children so?
<quoted text>
Where exactly did Veryvermilion damn children? Whose children? Please provide the post number.
Thanks so much Kuntmare. Smile.
Right here! You stupid f**k! Right here!

"#202675
Monday Jul 15
"Who gives a goddamn when it comes to kids in regards to marriage?
As has been established throughout this entire conversation, married people are not required to have children. People who are unable to or who have no desire to have kids can and do marry.
If you're going to define marriage based on a couple's ability or desire to have children, then you need to halt all marriages between couples who will not have them.
Otherwise, STFU about kids and sterility, etc...
If you're going to argue this issue, you need to come up with a REAL reason for gays not to marry, vag man."
Right here! Post number, date, and cut-n-pasted, for you to pretend that you didn't know about! Complete with customary homo-insult to end it with.
Smiling now?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#203296 Jul 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the bottom line.
In the first paragraph, they verified my concise statement; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
As to the rest of the content, I knew exactly where it went. As I noted with my first reference, I have chosen brief summaries that prove my statement.
You should take note of the practice of 'briefness'...
Again, you can find that statement in other articles regarding marriage and mating behavior.
I want you to pay attention to the differences between the following two sentences:

--"Marriage is a cross cultural constrain on evolutionary mating behavior."

--"Marriage MIGHT BE a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, according to a theory put forth by David Buss and David Schmitt."

--"Marriages have been used by many as a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior--according to a theory. However, since not all marriages involve mating behavior, one CANNOT conclude that marriage IS ALWAYS defined in this manner."

----------

Now, I know you're a little slow. And I know just how much you're "married" (get it?) to your little definition of marriage. But even someone as witless as you should be able to see how incorrect you are.

If you read the article in its entirety, you will see that your definition applies only to "relationships" and not necessarily "marriage".

I'm sorry my response to your comment was so lengthy. In the future I will try to remember your short attention span and create my responses by way of "sock-puppet theater", which I will then upload to YouTube.
Stem

Monrovia, CA

#203297 Jul 17, 2013
The wheels keep rolling too.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203298 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I said something like, "I don't give a goddamn about the children".
And they have spun it to mean that I'm "damning" children.
They know full well that I'm TIRED of them using children to fight marriage equality. Children aren't on every single person's mind when they get married. I know if I get married, I won't be thinking about children. I'm not going to have any. I won't be adopting any. They're not going to be a part of my future.
That's why I'm sick to death of hearing about "the children". Please! They don't give a damn about the children. They're only interested in stirring up anti-homosexual sentiment.
But they know this.
They're just being disingenuous.
I think that you said.....this:
"#202675
Monday Jul 15
"Who gives a goddamn when it comes to kids in regards to marriage?
As has been established throughout this entire conversation, married people are not required to have children. People who are unable to or who have no desire to have kids can and do marry.
If you're going to define marriage based on a couple's ability or desire to have children, then you need to halt all marriages between couples who will not have them.
Otherwise, STFU about kids and sterility, etc...
If you're going to argue this issue, you need to come up with a REAL reason for gays not to marry, vag man."

Complete with insult at the end. Remember now? That was what prompted me to say that you really DO need a beating, prompting you to invite me down to the holler, if I felt froggy. Remember that, now, Fat Abner? God help any kids that you ever DO end up wanting to adopt, in the name of $$. As soon as they anger you, it'll be "Froggy Fat Boi" time...Just as soon as you "tire" of telling them to be quiet.
"I'm not going to have any. I won't be adopting any." right now, but later...when you have visions of sugar plums...
"They don't give a damn about the children.".. Here, you presume to speak for us. Silly Fat Abner. Speak for yourself, I need no cake-boi to speak for me.
And... "They don't give a damn about the children." from the one who has no concern for children, talking out of his a$$ about what he wants to have us speaking about, so that he may fault us, after another silly meltdown from which there is no back-pedaling.
"..being disingenuous." indeed. Look who's spinning now...
Some social "scientist"... Given to fits of rage.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203299 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You have linked to some "Yahoo" contributor; someone who basically wrote a term paper. And she never used your quote.
I don't have to prove that your comment is a lie. You need to prove that it's true. Give us one a single legitimate social scientist who proves your "social science" claim.
Social science (and basic common sense) defines marriage as a legal union that meets the needs of two people.
It doesn't matter whether a couple marries to raise a family and/or for companionship and/or for one of the pair to improve their status (financial/material) and/or for love and/or lust/beauty...
All of these are legitimate reasons for marriage.
The government certainly doesn't become involved in the reasons people marry. It's none of their business. It's none of the church's business. And it's certainly none of your business.
Oh, now..
You cannot be serious...
"Social science (and basic common sense) defines marriage as a legal union that meets the needs of two people."...pshaw. You may be able to quibble about definitions, splitting hairs. SOCIETY defines marriage as the bond between man and woman. Simple, no need to dissect and cherrypick.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Menifee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 8 hr scoop 2,273
is it okay to make out with your sister (Feb '11) 21 hr Veronica 10
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 22 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
Californians fight over migrants 23 hr Cat74 143
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Thu Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 17 Blazing saddles 7,954
Re-Elect Tom Fuhrman Menifee City Council Sep 15 Righthand Man 18
•••

Menifee News Video

•••
Menifee Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Menifee Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Menifee People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Menifee News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Menifee
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••